Cheryl Binosa

    Successfully tried a Motion for lack of coverage.  In this matter, petitioner alleged injuries sustained in a MVA.  The claim was denied as petitioner, the owner of the company, had excluded himself from coverage under the policy.  Nonetheless, following the accident, petitioner claimed that he did not know that he specifically excluded himself from coverage. Emails were submitted to the court indicating that petitioner was given information about different policy premiums for coverage and non-coverage.  The emails further indicated that he had previously excluded himself on an earlier policy.  The motion was tried and testimony was taken both from the insurance broker and of the petitioner. The Judge did not find the petitioner credible noting that he frequently changed his answers when confronted with documents that contradicted his assertions. As such, the Judge granted our dismissal with prejudice.  Respondent avoided being on the hook for payment of medical treatment for multiple injuries and temporary disability benefits.

    back to top